Lets not forget either the plan to "dress up" a drone to "appear" like an airliner and then blow it up over Cuba.

I am convinced a cruise missile of some kind was "dressed up" this way and flown into the Pentagon.

Stranger

09-12-2006 11:28 PM

Re: The "Northwoods" Document

TB, say it aint so. I found you to be one of the more level headed posters.

That argument of a missile hitting the pentagon requires a lot more than blind faith to accept. I know, I know, there are many websites out there that have speculative evidence of a missile (please, no links, Iíve seen them). However, they fail to mention the dozens of eye witnesses that saw a freakin plane fly into the building. No, not illuminati spies, just your average citizens. .

If you want to argue about who flew the plane or who was responsible, then go for it. But please, no more of this missile talk.

This is the part when the over-the-edge conspiracists jump in and try and tear me a new one, be gentle boys, I know I am rocking the paranoid boat.

Bouncer

09-13-2006 11:40 AM

Re: The "Northwoods" Document

Right - the extension of this would be a likely scenario regarding domestic targets in the US. In fact, you could substitute WTC for Cuba in this document and it would echo the concerns of many who discovered all of the incongruities surrounding the 9/11 attacks.

Another implication is that, being fully aware of such tactics, our security forces had no excuse to dismiss the warnings leading up to 9/11.

09-13-2006 01:45 PM

Re: The "Northwoods" Document

We would know with certainty if they'd simply release the local security camera footage!

truebeliever

09-13-2006 08:33 PM

Re: The "Northwoods" Document

Quote:

This is the part when the over-the-edge conspiracists jump in and try and tear me a new one, be gentle boys, I know I am rocking the paranoid boat.

I've spent alot of time thinking about the Pentagon and I trust you believe me when I say the evidence is clear. No 110 ton Boeing 757 crashed into the Pentagon.

With regards the witnesses. This is obviously a difficult one. Dave has done an excellent job of compiling lists of exactly WHO the witnesses are. Using mainly the excellent work of an Australian guy who's name I cant remember.

Also, witnesses are NOTORIOUSLY unreliable. Also, what about the MANY witnesses who DID NOT see a 110 ton Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon? Can they be discounted so easily? :-)

Perhaps my favourite way of discrediting witnesses is the ridiculous claims of many that this 110 ton aircraft travelling at 400knots passed OVER THEIR HEADS at 30ft! Quite simply they would be dead. Can you imagine the jet engine blast and "backwash" from such a large object moving at such a speed? Go to this link (froms Daves site) and see what happens to a vehicle when it strays to close to the jet blast of a 747 engine...Link To Video.

Does this look like the hole a 110 ton 757 would leave?

Do you think the delicate nose section of a commercial aircraft could "neatly" penetrate 5 rings of the reinforced walls of the Pentagon leaving this lovely neat hole?

I'll tell you what leaves such a nice round hole. The depleted uranium nose cap of a cruise missile. In fact the media reported the "finding" of the nose of the "aircraft".

Before you say "the engine did it"...wheres the other engine penetration?

In keeping with the "theme" of the thread...the cruise missile was "dressed up" just like they said they would do in the Northwoods document to look like a commercial airliner. Witnesses saw a small aircraft painted to look like a American airlines aircraft. 400 knots and low level did the rest plus the well known desire of witnesses to keep within official versions of events.

Trust me...go through McGowans detailed replies to EVERY point and you will be convinced that NO Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon.

Here also is the CC thread from a while back addressing the Pentagon attack.:-)